Prevention of Radial Artery Occlusion of 3 Hemostatic Methods in Transradial Intervention for Coronary Angiography.

OBJECTIVES: The main objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of 3 hemostatic methods for the prevention of early radial artery occlusion (RAO): standard patent hemostasis, patent hemostasis with ulnar compression or the ulnar artery transient compression facilitating radial artery patent hemostasis (ULTRA) method, and facilitated hemostasis with a hemostatic disc. BACKGROUND: There are no prospective randomized studies that compare early RAO rates with the 3 most used nonocclusive hemostatic methods. METHODS: This was a prospective, longitudinal, comparative, and randomized study. The final population analyzed was 1,469, and they were randomized into 3 groups: 491 patients in group 1 with standard patent hemostasis, 490 patients in group 2 with the ULTRA method, and 488 patients in group 3 with facilitated hemostasis with a hemostatic disc. RESULTS: The RAO rate at 24 hours of the total population analyzed was 4.6%. By hemostasis groups, it was 3.6% for patent hemostasis, 5.5% for the ULTRA method, and 4.7% for facilitated hemostasis with a hemostatic disc, with no statistical difference among the 3 groups (P = 0.387). At 30 days, the overall rate of RAO was 1.8%, and by groups, it was 1.4% for the patent hemostasis group, 1.8% for the ULTRA method group, and 2.2% for the facilitated hemostasis with a hemostatic disc group, respectively (P = 0.185). CONCLUSIONS: The rates of RAO at 24 hours evaluated by plethysmography oximetry and confirmed by ultrasound among 3 current radial hemostasis methods (ie, patent hemostasis, the ULTRA method, and facilitated hemostasis with a hemostatic disc) are not different.

Diagnostic agreement of quantitative flow ratio with fractional flow reserve in a Latin-American population.

Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a recently proposed angiographic index that allows to assess the pressure loss in coronary arteries in a similar fashion as the fractional flow reserve (FFR). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of QFR as compared to FFR, in a Latin-American population of patients with suspected ischaemic heart disease. QFR was retrospectively derived from coronary angiograms. The association, diagnostic performance, and continuous agreement of fixed-flow QFR (fQFR) and contrast-flow QFR (cQFR) with FFR was assessed by continuous and dichotomous methods. 90 vessels form 66 patients were finally included. The study comprised coronary stenoses of intermediate severity, both angiographically (diameter stenosis: 46.6 ± 12.8%) and physiologically [median FFR = 0.83 (quartile 1-3, 0.76-0.89)]. The correlation of FFR with both fQFR [ρ = 0.841, (95% CI 0.767 to 0.893), p < 0.001] and cQFR [ρ = 0.833, (95% CI 0.755 to 0.887), p < 0.001] was strong. The diagnostic performance of cQFR was good [area under the ROC curve of 0.92 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.97, p < 0.001)], with 0.80 as the optimal cQFR cut-off against FFR ≤ 0.80. This 0.80 cQFR cut-off classified correctly 83.3% of total stenoses, with a sensitivity of 85.2% and specificity of 80.6%. QFR was strongly associated with FFR and exhibited a high diagnostic performance in this Latin-American population.